User talk:Dcoetzee/Archive 2012-12-31

A kitten for you!

I just saw your wonderful initiative at Commons:Equipment exchange. I'll upgrade my equipment soon, and I was wondering what to do with my old body and lenses. Thanks for this inspiring idea.

Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a simple discrete "Bravo". --Foroa (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! It'll be great to see others getting equipment to free content contributors who need them too. Remember to ping COM:VP if you do, I found that was necessary to attract sufficient interest. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Tougher kitten for you

File:Cat guarding the beer fridge.jpg

A full size kitten that is tough enough to guard a beer fridge from the dogs. Ditto above.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Dcoetzee (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome.

Hello, Dcoetzee. Check your email—you've got mail! You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons fair use upload bot, section 2

Just a simple request — when you have the bot upload to en:wp, would you please tell it not to copy any deletion templates? Because {{Delete}} over there is a redirect to en:'s equivalent of {{Speedydelete}}, any images that it uploads are immediately tagged for speedy deletion with the DR's reasoning becoming the (just about always) invalid rationale for speedy deletion over there. Nyttend (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. However note that fair use delete shouldn't generally be applied during an unresolved deletion request. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons_fair_use_upload_bot

Continuing the talk here (User_talk:Dcoetzee/Archive_2012-07-27#Commons_fair_use_upload_bot), can you please add support to ml.wikipedia for this bot? --Sreejith K (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Commons Barnstar
		For all the images you've uploaded from NPG, especially the ones of writers and poets. I've been adding these to articles and downloading copies for myself for a couple years now, so I figured it was time to give you a quick thanks. INeverCry 00:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem! It's people like you that make the legal risk worthwhile. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Bendix Trophy.jpg

Hi, I was unaware this was up for deletion, or I would have spoken before. The image was taken by a Wikipedia editor at the Smithsonian, IIRC, and released into PD by him. There can be no question of this being copyrighted by the race owners, as it is a photograph taken of a publicly displayed object of historical significance. This would even qualify were it under fair use, as the article is now completely without images. Please advise, can this be undeleted, or is a community discussion necessary? KillerChihuahua (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the issue was not with the photograph, which was released under a free license, but with the trophy itself which may have been a copyrighted sculpture, if copyright was registered and renewed for it. In case you want to re-upload it to English Wikipedia as a fair use candidate let me know, but you'll have to be prepared to write a fair use rationale. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons fair use upload bot

So I just noticed en:File:RBHSWildlogo - from Commons.png which was transferred over to enwiki with the {{Copyvio}} template intact, which is used there for text copyvios and doesn't really apply to something that's being considered for fair use to begin with. Maybe the bot should just cut that template out when it transfers it? VernoWhitney (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Done! Dcoetzee (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair use bot

There is a question in Administrators Noticeboard on how soon can we get this bot support more projects. Here is the link to the discussion. Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#PD-India. Can you share your thoughts there? --Sreejith K (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to know why you are requesting deletion on my photo

I posted over on the request for deletion page at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Google_Cr-48.jpg , but I am wondering why you want to delete my photo. I took it myself on my own desk at home, and i'm just using it for a userbox on my Wikipedia page. Please reconsider. Thanks, and have a great day/night.--Nyswimmer (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. See the deletion request page- I think Mattbuck explained well. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Google art project extension

Good evening. Dear Dcoetzee, I will truly and deeply respect you for the great work you are doing - propagandiruete world culture to the masses. I ask for my importunity, but would very much like you to continue the work started once you have laid out the case and new collections of images from the Google art project. I and all who are interested in art will be very grateful. Please write whether to wait for the new collection in the pages wikimedia?

Hi, thanks for the reminder. I'm just a bit busy but I'll get to it as soon as I can. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

License discussion

Sorry, I didn't know you are getting frustrated. Thanks for your input so far, and would appreciate it if you could continue giving input. --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

C2RMF images

Hello,

How did you download the images for Category:High-resolution images from C2RMF? I ask because I found [1], but I could only get this size with the API, and uploaded it here.

Thank you. InverseHypercube 04:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi InverseHypercube. I wrote a program to do this which retrieves a large set of tiles and then stitches them together. I'm retrieving the image you gave now, but I'm surprised because it wasn't listed in their gallery of high-resolution works. Could you point me to a more complete list of high-resolution works hosted on C2RMF's site? I would like to get them all. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 10:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that's how. Have you considered posting the source so other people can operate it in the future? That's what I did for a very similar program of mine.

I just found that image here. By Googling "http://merovingio.c2rmf.cnrs.fr/iipimage/showcase/*" I also found [2] and [3]. [4], [5], [6], and [7] have the infrared reflectographs; maybe those could be uploaded too? InverseHypercube 01:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I will post source, although there are two halves to the program, one which runs in Windows to retrieve tiles and one which runs in Linux to assemble tiles, which makes it a bit awkward. There is the risk though that they may react by trying to prevent my program from working (C2RMF seems less concerned with this than NPG). I had no idea you could use wildcards in Google URL searches! I am reluctant to upload the infrared or xray photographs (or even raking light photographs) because I have no idea whether those are in the public domain - there is no case law concerning such things. It'd be helpful if I could ask you to upload low-res versions of the (normal visible light) ones you linked above, so that I can upload over them and save the trouble of filling out an artwork template. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will do so. InverseHypercube 05:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you can use wildcards in any Google search. I only found out about this recently; it's very useful! InverseHypercube 05:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, there was only one new one. Here it is: File:Deposition of Christ C2RMF.jpg. InverseHypercube 05:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Block matrix multiplication.svg

If it's ok I fixed/cleaned the square root into a shape (rather than two symbols), regrouped the shapes/text for (hopefully) easier editing in the future (dots are one group, everything else is the background), and rotated the triple-dots (the "...") vertical and 45 degrees rather than using additional characters, which may appear as a white box.

I didn't change anything else - your originality remains intact!

Thanks very much for uploading this, especially adding it to matrix multiplication! Best, Maschen (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I couldn't figure out how to do those things and appreciate your edits. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For donating your D300 to another user. Pine✉ 20:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you :-) I'm already happy to see the works they're producing, so well worth it. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi Derrick. Can you take a quick look at this image I just uploaded: File:Ebenezer Elliott 2.jpg? The image is obviously pd-old as the subject died in 1849 and the site states c1800 for the date of the painting, but because of the UK copyright stuff in the EXIF, I wonder if there's anything more I should do by way of tags etc? Thanks for your time. INeverCry 20:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I added the correct tags, see the file description page history. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'll use that for future reference. INeverCry 18:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons_fair_use_upload_bot doesn't seem to upload

Gday Dcoetzee. Wondering about Commons fair use upload bot as it says that it has relocated the last few files to the required wikis, yet when I go to enWS and enWP, I cannot see the files at the respective wikis, and these wikis point to the Commons files. Would you mind having a look and seeing what is the issue. Thx.

It's currently blocked on the English Wikipedia (due to a combination of poor documentation and expired approval). I have a new bot request on file at en:Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Commons_fair_use_upload_bot_2 but it may take some time. It should be working on Wikisource unless it was blocked there too - I didn't receive a talk page notice or anything there. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The cupboard is bare s:en:Special:Contributions/Commons fair use upload bot, and no blocks, we are more robust than that anyway. <sigh> for enWP.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay if it's not blocked on Wikisource it might be a bug in the current code, I can investigate that when I have a chance. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI Commons fair use upload bot is now unblocked on En. Thanks for your encouragement in accelerating things. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Very welcome. I hate it when we get so wrapped up in the minutiæ process and perfection that we fail the reality check.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Any progress? Any success?  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It's enabled now, on an indefinite trial. Feel free to use it. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Not that dashed enWP! <eyeroll> you were going to look why it wasn't working to more important sites like English Wikisource, especially as local admins have a tendency to delete DjVu files used for transcriptions and break whole works in a very ugly way.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Commons_fair_use_upload_bot for the OGV file has failed at s:Special:Contributions/Commons_fair_use_upload_bot, so it is still not uploading to enWS. :-(  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll investigate when I have an opportunity but I'm super busy. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

PING. Any success on helping all the sister wikis utilise this feature? It would be nice if it worked beyond enWP.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Billinghurst, I investigated and there was no problem with the bot other than its documentation. Works that are intended to be transferred due to being PD in the US but not the source country must not be tagged {{Fair use delete}}, but instead be tagged {{PD-US-1923-abroad-delete}}. Since Wikisource doesn't accept fair use uploads, it was not uploading files labelled {{Fair use delete}} to there. I've updated the user page with these instructions - hope this helps. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Grimaldi

Hi there, I see you have uploaded the lede image to the above and wanted to ask a question. I plan to take the article to FAC in the next few weeks and I'm just going through all the images. I note a possible issue with the source and wondered if you could take a look for me. There seems to be a tag on it which tells me it may or may not be copyright. I do hope not as I think the image is great and would love to carry on using it. All the best! Cassianto (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The image is in the public domain in the United States. The tag relates to the National Portrait Gallery dispute. See en:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. Commons would not host an image which you cannot use. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! -- Cassianto (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Frame

Hello Dcoetzee,

Your bot uploaded this, but by looking at it I can't be sure if it's a true frame that must be cropped, or a trompe l'oeil which is part of the painting. What do you think?--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 14:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Darwin, there are some cracks and flakes of wood near the top of the frame suggesting it is a real-life frame rather than a painting. As such I've marked the image with {{Non-free frame}}. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --- Darwin ^Ahoy! 09:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

El Lissitzky paintings (Colecção Berardo)

Hello Dcoetzee, I was wondering if your bot will upload the El Lissitzky works at Colecção Berardo? There are more works by Liubov Sergeievna Popova which are PD-1923, besides the one it uploaded. Will it upload everything at some point? Thanks, --- Darwin ^Ahoy! 03:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

By default I only upload works that the bot can identify as freely licensed - many works in that collection require manual review due either to incomplete information or complex licensing situations. However I'll take a look at them now and get as many as possible up. Note that in the case of Liubov Sergeievna Popova, I actually can upload works published after 1923, because he died more than 70 years before 1996, the URAA date. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

(Popova is a she ;) ) There's no need to hurry them, I was only curious because it is (sadly) the only Portuguese Museum in that project. BTW, all Portuguese painters who died before 1942 are URAA-free, we are exempt from that thing for the time being. Unfortunately there seems to be very few of them there, I've only found Amadeo Souza-Cardozo to the moment...--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 03:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

(Oops!) I see now, Portugal had 50 pma on the URAA date, so it doesn't apply to authors who died before 1946 (so all works PD in Portugal are currently PD in US too). I'm about to go back and make sure I get all the Portuguese works up that I can from that collection. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we are safe until 1946 (and until 1971 for photos, which only had 25 years protection after creation at the URAA date). Actually, if it's not asking too much, there is a painting there at Google Art Project on which I have a special interest - The Island of Madeira, by John Glover. The entire collection by this artist can be uploaded, indeed, since he died in 1849. Thank you very much for the excellent work you have done with Google Art Project, it's really amazing. Do you need help with anything there? Like manual review of some collections? I'll do some categorization as well, I noticed that a lot of them are still uncategorised.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 03:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I've now uploaded all possible works from Colecção Berardo and the Glover work is at File:John Glover - The Island of Madeira - Google Art Project.jpg (I'll get his other works later). Categorization would be welcome - in my experience the easiest way to do categorization quickly is to find works that already have other versions at Commons and then copy categories from them (and also link them in the commons_other_works field). I'm also looking for images that have existing inferior versions with a large number of uses, so that I can replace them with my global image replace tool, and start getting the new GAP images into active use. License review isn't needed yet because I'm still uploading a lot of works that are very clearly in the public domain at this time, but there will be work to do later in that area. Thanks for your offers! Dcoetzee (talk) 04:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! About the replacements, I've initially done them with the Amadeo de Souza-Cardoso paintings but then I realized that the new versions, while incredibly better in quality at close view, in thumbnail view are not as bright as the older, less quality versions. It could probably be fixed by fiddling with curves and levels in GIMP, but I'm afraid to do that with those new versions (even uploading as different versions) since perhaps they have the actual true colours of the paintwork. --- Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Although the Google Art Project scans tend to be very accurate, I wouldn't hesitate to upload level-adjusted versions under a different filename to make them more clearly visible in articles. Level adjusting doesn't alter hues, and if done correctly only changes how the range of values maps to screen values, similar to adjusting the exposure of a photograph, rather than changing the painting. I would definitely do this where it's needed to replace existing images while achieving similar utility. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again for that information, I didn't knew that. I generally use the Gimp curves instead of levels because it is more precise, but I suppose it is the same. One last question, if you do not mind: Is Google Art Project a work in progress? Are they continuously adding new artworks? if yes, are you planning to keep up with the uploads? Thanks, --- Darwin ^Ahoy! 00:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

(Curves is fine too.) So far, I have no evidence that they have been adding new works, but I've only been watching them over a short time scale. They added a huge number of works last March or so, but I don't know if they've been gradually adding more. If they do, I have all the necessary tools to keep up with them, but it will require some modifications to invalidate some of my cached files. Dealing with the 32000 already present will be enough to keep me busy for a while. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Bot updates

Hi, it would be nice if:

• the bot does not undo our correction works as in this cat
• uses proper disambiguation or in other words, the same name as the artist category name
• uses standard sort keying as in other categories (now artists are sorted according to their first name)

Thank you. --Foroa (talk) 06:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the bug with undoing changes to categories. I believe it would be undesirable to use the same name as the artist category name, in case there are issues due to multiple artists with the same name (for example, if it uploads a work by John Doe the Elder, attributed to "John Doe", and marks it as by John Doe the Younger because Category:John_Doe redirects to Category:John Doe the Younger, for example because they are more well-known, that would be incorrect). However I'm happy to assist in renaming categories. It is also undesirable in general to sort artists according to their last name, as in some cultures the surname comes first, and the bot is unable to distinguish these cases - humans are free to add sort keys in cases where they are valid. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops, bug wasn't fixed, is actually fixed now. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

99 % of people sorts on Commons are surname first, while surnames are more similar in many languages, first names vary more from language to language. I guess that you defend your position primarily because other sorts would be a significant complication for your bot. --Foroa (talk) 05:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, this would be quite trivial to do. I'm just very reluctant to have the bot making guesses regarding what the correct sort key should be. In fact, I just encountered a case where it would have considerably complicated the correct merging of categories if I had done the sortkey you suggested (see Category:Google Art Project works by Francisco de Goya y Lucientes and its redirects). I might consider renaming and redoing the sort keys at a later time after the artist categories on them have been validated - I could just copy the sort keys from the artist categories at that time. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you show me two international categories where people are not sorted to their surname ? --Foroa (talk) 06:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The bigger issue for me is that many works in the Google Art Project database include other information in the artist name field, such as date of birth, nationality, title, whatever. Some artists conventionally have surnames omitted, like Michelangelo, while others do not. It would be very challenging to reliably identify surnames for the purpose of sortkeys. Like I said, I will later on run a bot pass that will copy sort keys from the artist categories that these categories are included in, after they have been validated to some extent by human review. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for sticking my nose in your business, but many of the old Portuguese painters should not be sorted by surname, and others are known by a double surname. Rafael Bordalo Pinheiro, Vieira Lusitano, Garcia Fernandes, Vieira Portuense, Amadeo de Souza Cardoso, and many others. At least in the case of the Portuguese, it really has to have human review. --- Darwin ^Ahoy! 00:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Commons Archive

I tried to upload an NEF at the Commons Archive, but it wouldn't work. It's not that it fails after I click the "Upload file" button at the bottom; it doesn't even get to that step. The file path simply won't show up next to "Source filename" and is just rejected. Ironically, the only files it seems to take are regular JPEGs. Could you look into this issue? Also, could you make me an admin while you're at it? Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be a little buggy, I seem to have to put it in twice before it will upload. I'm not sure why. I'll take a look at it soon. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Trying twice does not work for me. However, I was able to find this hack: On my own computer, I renamed the .zip and .jpg and selected it in the upload form. Then I changed "Destination filename" back to a .zip. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble - I'll investigate soon. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

GFDL

Dcoetzee,

Your comment in the Featured picture candidates GFDL discussion was picked up and seconded by several others. Currently a new proposal is being drafted at Commons:Village pump/Proposals. There have been several false starts, where Rd232 made several poorly worded proposals (IMO) and it turns out he doesn't support them anyway. So I'm working on a new draft proposal. You'll find it in the Rebooted proposal subsection beginning with the text "Proposal: The GFDL is no longer considered ..." What do you make of it as a proposal text? You might want to read the stuff Eric Möller wrote too. I want to make sure it will deal with the problems as you see them and is clear enough that a reasonable discussion can follow. Colin (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Karl Brullov - The Last Day of Pompeii - Google Art Project.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Karl Brullov - The Last Day of Pompeii - Google Art Project.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Google project <--> Statens Museum for Kunst-uploads

Hallo Dcoetzee, I do not know, do you think this category?. The here uploaded 158 pictures of the Statens Museum for Kunst (Copenhagen) of their corresponding pixel size of your pictures from the Google project. Greetings and thanks for the beautiful pictures --Botaurus (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a nice category. The resolution and quality is good, it includes some sculptures (which can't be included from Google Art Project due to PD-Art restrictions). When both projects provide an image, either would be suitable for article use. For most of these, however, {{Possibly-PD}} should be added, since many of them are in the public domain in the United States and other PD-Art nations. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

That may be. Most are old PD-100. What I mean, This is to duplicate and therefore unnecessary uploads - just in case you have not already uploaded all the relevant pictures. --Botaurus (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be relatively difficult for me to figure out which images these are and exclude them from the upload. It's easier to delete and redirect the copies later on. Additionally, the new description page may contain some metadata worth merging. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

google art uploads

I like the bot's uploads and have been categorizing some. I've noticed a couple of issues:

• "Oil on canvas" often appears as the medium when it isn't. For example File:Rembrandt_van_Rijn_-_The_Concord_of_the_State_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg and File:Rembrandt_van_Rijn_-_Study_of_an_Old_Man_in_Profile_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg are oil on panel and this is indicated on GAP's description page. I can't even see in the wiki-code where "oil on canvas" (via a template) is coming from.
• Yesterday I noticed that some modern photographs of non-2d art objects had been uploaded. Now I can't find them in the last 500 contribs; perhaps they've been deleted already.
• Files such as File:1350_-_before_1450)_-_Combat_with_Pollaxe_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg are taking numerous different images under the same file.

FYI... Boo-Boo Baroo (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Occasionally 3D objects slip through because GAP mislabels them as having object type "painting," but this should be pretty rare. I usually keep an eye out for these in post-upload manual review. The mapping from medium to medium templates is set up in Template:Google Art Project medium, and I mistakenly assumed oil on panel and canvas were the same thing (fixed now). Reuploading images under the same name is due to a bug with my caching system, I'll just disable it for now. I can make it go back and reupload those under separate names. Thanks for the heads up. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

F2ComButton

Hi. Re; User:Odie5533/F2ComButton/f2com_button.user.js. I find this very useful for uploading from Flickr to Commons, but it stopped working several months ago. The creator of he script has not edited on Commons for a while and has not responded to comments on his talk page for a long time. I guess that there has been some modifications to Flickr on Commons that are not compatible with the script. Can you fix it or do you know anyone that might be able to fix it? I have also asked User talk:MGA73. - Snowmanradio (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I tried it earlier and it didn't work for me either. I may be able to fix it but I'm swamped as it is so probably not any time soon. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank for your reply. Snowmanradio (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Google Art Project files descriptions

I think will be good idea to use language templates for Title/Medium/Dimensions/Current location/Notes/Source/Photographer fields. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I already use localized templates or language templates to render almost all of these in Template:Google Art Project. They are added by the template and should not be included in the template parameters, as that would be redundant. Some of the fields do contain English (like the Source field) but you can easily fix this by editing Template:Google Art Project (I already modified the Source field to use Template:From Google Art Project which is internationalized but needs more translations). Dcoetzee (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Antoine Benoist - Louis XIV (1638 - 1715) - Google Art Project.jpg

I am afraid, dear Dcoetzee, this portrait is not a two-dimensional work of art.--Thorvaldsson (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, at the time I had not yet programmed the bot to check if the file had been deleted before. It should not return. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Google Art Project works by James Abbott McNeil Whistler

Google Art Project works by James Abbott McNeil Whistler has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

There are two cats in that nomination, resulting I think from automatic processing of errors and inconsistencies in the input dataset. Since you are running this I imagine you will know how to report this to GAP, I couldn't find any instructions for doing so. I imagine I will notice other problems, what is the best way to deal with them? Like this or otherwise? --Mirokado (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, please don't nominate the category for deletion - instead use {{Catredirect}} to redirect it to the correctly spelt category (e.g. {{catredirect|Google Art Project works by James Abbott McNeill Whistler}}). Delete all content from the category description page except for the catredirect tag. Also, I have scripts to rename categories, so if you find any more of these with lots of files let me know - I've fixed several already myself. I don't believe there is any way to report errors in metadata to the Google Art Project, although I have indeed found many such errors. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I have withdrawn the nomination, or at any rate attempted to, and both those cats are now redirects as suggested. --Mirokado (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Dcoetzee (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair use file move to Wikipedia

Hi Dcoetzee, can you move this file to Wikipedia for fair use? It's a copyrighted image that the uploader tagged as PD. Thanks - M0rphzone (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Google Art Project works in The Royal Collection, London

Hi Dcoetzee, the place London should be deleted, because in the cat are works from all locations of the collection.

see Category:Royal Collection of the United Kingdom, http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/collection--Oursana (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay but other nations have royal collections as well. Do you think it should be "Google Art Project works in The Royal Collection of the United Kingdom"? I can do that. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that would be perfect. We can keep Category:Google Art Project works in The Royal Collection, London as sub cat, like Category:Google Art Project works in Art in the Royal Collection of the United Kingdom in Windsor Castle I did. Have a nice day and thanks for your excellent work--Oursana (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Google Art Project works by William Henry Fox Talbot (British‎

Could you move the files to Category:Google Art Project works by William Henry Fox Talbot and Category:Henry Fox Talbot. After this I would suggest to delete not redirect the cat to Category:Google Art Project works by William Henry Fox Talbot (British‎. I think redirektion is not useful as nobody would use the category with the amendment British. Thank you--Oursana (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks for identifying this one. The redirected category is useful for the ongoing upload process, because I have a lot more works to upload and some of them will be mislabelled in the same manner (otherwise it will just re-create that category). Dcoetzee (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Google Art Project‎

When a file is in Category:Google Art Project works by artist‎ and/or Category:Google Art Project works by collection don't you think it is over categorization to keep it in this category?--Oursana (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

In reflection, yes. However, the original 1000 images were placed in the main category, and it would be inconsistent to have them there and the new ones not be there. All of them need to be subcategorized properly before the main category can be shelved. This can be done automatically but will require more scripting. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Lake-Side Publishing Co., corner Clark & Adams Streets, by Lovejoy & Foster.png

Has it always been like this? --Nemo 11:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no idea. That was 3 years ago and I uploaded many thousands of images like that. I don't think the code I have to reupload it would even still work. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a better version of File:Canada's Dedication Day at the Columbian Exposition, by Kilburn, B. W. (Benjamin West), 1827-1909.png?

---

Thank you for your submission of File:Canada's Dedication Day at the Columbian Exposition, by Kilburn, B. W. (Benjamin West), 1827-1909.png. While all submissions are useful, do you think you might be able to supply a better quality version of the same, or similar, content? In many cases, the largest and highest resolution possible is the most useful version to have available. (MediaWiki has automatic resizing functionality, so there is no need for multiple versions of the same image at different sizes, users can select any size and the software will generate and cache the needed resolution on the fly.)

If you can supply the same exact image as File:Canada%27s Dedication Day at the Columbian Exposition, by Kilburn, B. W. (Benjamin West), 1827-1909.png at a larger resolution (or media at a higher bitrate, etc.), please just upload it over the original, users will get the new higher quality version with no further effort on your part. If on the other hand, the content is only similar, it is best to select a new image name, as there may be uses already where some aspect of the existing media was key to the usage. In the latter case, if you can provide a crosslink reference to the new image in the older one and vice versa, that will be extremely helpful.

Again, thank you very much for your contribution, it is appreciated.

Seems to be cut offMcZusatz (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Like I said before, that was over 3 years ago and one of tens of thousands of files, and I don't know if my code for that batch upload will even still work. I also don't really have time to look into it right now. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I did a manual fix. Should be ok now. --McZusatz (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow

Hi Derrick! Dear, please help me to download pictures in high resolution from the site http://www.arts-museum.ru. For example http://www.arts-museum.ru/data/fonds/europe_and_america/j/2001_3000/6628_Yupiter_i_Kallisto/index.php Or, if you would be so kind, I would like to ask you to download some images to me and put in Wikimedia. I will be very grateful to you for it. thank you in advance. And if you know how to remove watermarks from pictures without quality loss? Write process.

I don't have time to look at this right now, but I do like a challenge. The watermarks are stored in the underlying image data, so they're quite difficult to remove, but they're translucent, so it is possible. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Derrick! Recalls its request that is addressed to you a year ago. Can you do anything? I'd love you to be able to cope with the challenge. Thank you in advance and I'm sorry to trouble you, because without you can not be without.

Help, heilp me!!!!!! Derrick, help please upload the pictures from the site http://www.arts-museum.ru/data/fonds/europe_and_america/j/2001_3000/6628_Yupiter_i_Kallisto/index.php

I'm sorry but I'm overwhelmed as it is by the Google Art Project uploads, so I won't have time for this. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps then, when you're done with Google Art Project uploads. I beg you not to refuse help.

Omit Metadata

Hi Dcoetzee, you somewhere posted that you could remove any particular piece of private metadata. Could you possibly omit the name and address/number of the photographer of the following files (he doesn't want this information to be displayed publicly): http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Festsaal_Schloss_Lustheim.jpg#file and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saalansicht_Schloss_Lustheim.jpg. This would be great. Thank you

I can, but they are likely to have to submit their CC0 release through OTRS, since there is no apparent connection between them and the uploader. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed! The one image I finally used seems to be fine with regard to the copyrights (which I may grant). Next time, I will mind the metadata before uploading any image.

Thanks

I am delighted with the work you have done with the files Google Art. I saw only one small mistake: in the National Museum of Delhi you missed a small masterpiece - Radha and Krishna in the boat of love. http://www.googleartproject.com/ru/collection/national-museum-delhi/artwork/radha-and-krishna-in-the-boat-of-love-unknown/6880441/ If it will not be difficult, please download the file in Wikicommons. In addition, there were many new museums. Especially valuable, in my opinion, are the Poldi Pezzoli Museum and Fondazione Musei Senesi. You have a lot of work ahead. I wish you success.

Eugene a

There are many works yet to process. I will prioritize any collections you have a particular interest in, like the three mentioned above. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Starry Night

Hi,

Just a note. Your histmerge deletion of this file seems to have resulted in User:CommonsDelinker removing the file from multiple wikis. -- Razimantv (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

*sigh* That's because CommonsDelinker is very, very stupid. I'm going to have to revert it. I can automatically go over its contribs across all possible wikis to find its bad edits to revert. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

That would be great. I have manually reverted the bot on all pages about the painting. Not masochistic enough to find the other pages the bot has removed the image from -- Razimantv (talk) 07:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Well thankfully the log contains a complete list and is queryable, so I won't have to do an exhaustive search, and I can automate the reverting. However I'm concerned because I've done history merges on several other images recently, and I'll have to go back and check them all to make sure CommonsDelinker wasn't being stupid then. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

These edits are now completely reverted. I'll investigate if any of my other history merges triggered it and revert them too as needed. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I checked and none of my other history merges triggered CommonsDelinker. It seems the timing of this one was just particularly unlucky. Thanks so much for letting me know. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

:) Best wishes -- Razimantv (talk) 08:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Jacopo Bassano (Jacopo dal Ponte) - The Adoration of the Kings - Google Art Project.jpg

Hi Dcoetzee,

just want to tell you, that the death year is only shown on edit-page, that is a pity, perhaps you can manage this.

Many many thanks for all your work.--Oursana (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Compare File:Jacopo Bassano, il vecchio - Adoration of the Magi - Google Art Project.jpg by same!! artist. I will delink the files and redirect.--Oursana (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Currently the template uses the "artist_pretty_display_date" parameter which usually includes the death date, but mysteriously does not here. You can override it by entering the desired artist name/date (or a creator template) into the commons_artist field, which I've done now. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you--Oursana (talk) 08:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

volume

Can you turn up the volume of the file File:Je ne comprends pas.ogg please ? Fête (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Slaapkamer

Don't want to discourage the search for excellence in fine-art reproduction, but we have dozens of images of different versions of this -- just search "van gogh bedroom"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

(assuming you're referring to File:Vincent van Gogh - De slaapkamer - Google Art Project.jpg) I'm well aware of that. This version is higher quality, much higher resolution, and already used in several articles. (Certainly none of the other versions are 30,000 pixels wide). Moreover, you are probably confusing Van Gogh's three different versions of Bedroom in Arles, which are not identical (see subcats of Category:Bedroom in Arles). If you're referring to File:Vincent van Gogh - De slaapkamer - Google Art Project - edited.jpg, I didn't like that edit and ended up deleting it. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

OK -- I'm not singling you out personally, but it seems to me that what's most needed now on the Slaapkamer front is the imposition of a little order or structure, and not the uploading of yet further scans (even if the scans are individually great...). AnonMoos (talk) 08:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The category structure seems fine to me, there is a category for all digitizations of each work. I normally try to globally replace all uses of competing images by the superior images from GAP, but in this case I haven't done it yet because the GAP version is pretty dark and I'd like to ensure that the colours are accurate. In any case this image has been up since February - I only uploaded a higher res version just now. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

non-pd photos

Thanks for your reply (up above). Still sorting through the uploads--it's interesting. I believe Category:Google Art Project works by Tombazis Nikolaos are photos from the 1950s so I'm assuming they should be excluded. However you obv. know more about this stuff than me.

As an aside, when you categorize paintings yourself that you and your bot have uploaded, could I suggest making sure the standard three categories (at least IMO) "Name of painter/Painter's paintings", "Year/decade paintings", and the museum/collection are used? Genre or subject or whatever is nice too, when available, but that's scattershot and depends on art knowledge. Boo-Boo Baroo (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That set was uploaded automatically due to an error in the metadata (Tombazis died in 1986, not 1896!) Thanks for catching it. I often forget about the date categories but those are useful ones to add. I'm a little reluctant to work with date categories because they feel so large and assorted, but I realise they have their uses. For the most part I'll be depending on others for categorization, as I have a ton more license sorting and uploading work to do on this set and it will take many months. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, as with most categories they have their uses, but usually have no use. :-) I've been thinking about "tags" lately and how interesting it would be to organize Commons that way; relying on computed searching of intersections of non-correlated tags like "Van Gogh" and "Paris" and "1886" and "Louvre" and "oil painting" rather than "Category:1880s Van Gogh paintings in the Louvre" type of thing. Because the degree of detail in categorization here ranges from little to way too fine-grained. I'm a newbie and I don't know if there are suggested categorization schemes for different topics on this project, but if there are they appear to not be followed. Thus I haven't looked. Boo-Boo Baroo (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think a system of tags and/or facets would be vastly superior, but it would take a lot of time and work to roll out a new feature, especially with usability testing. (If you're not familiar with facet systems, see the left sidebar here for an example). Categorization granularity is inconsistent at best. I think the hierarchy can have advantages for browsing, but it can also be generated dynamically from a tag system. Will think about ways to propose a design for this for the future. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a fundamental change. Came here to say that File:Drouar (French, Paris (possibly André Drouart, recorded 1674–88)) - Armor of Infante Luis, Prince of Asturias - Google Art Project.jpg needs to be deleted as a 3D photograph. If you'd prefer I don't bring these to your talk page, let me know what to do instead. Is there a speedy deletion ability for files like this? Boo-Boo Baroo (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! There is, you can tag them with the {{Copyvio}} tag - that'll ensure someone deletes it as soon as possible. But please do bring them to me as well, so that I can identify any potential issues with my software leading to incorrect uploads. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Will do. New subject: could you take a look at the overwrite I've uploaded here. This is obviously the source of the GAP file, but the file size is significantly larger. (The file is from the museum's own web site, which has an interesting initiative called "High resolution public domain" files. Do you agree with the premise that bigger file size is better? I could have looked at both images beyond natural resolution to look for artifact quality, but didn't. Possibly the method by which your system stitches together GAP files reduces their native "quality"? Secondly, if you agree, is overwriting the GAP file OK with you? If you disagree on either point, feel free to revert my overwrite. I should focus on new files anyway.

Ideally you could point your bot at the LACMA site [I realize it's not that simple!] if it hasn't already been done (I don't think so). The overall site entry point, specifically for the hi-res images, is here or, before being shunted off to an IP addressed server, [8]. Presumably that collection includes a decent number of real 3d photographs which LACMA is apparently releasing into the public domain, potentially adding some very high quality 3d art photos to Commons. I am just starting to look, and want to proceed, but as you know manual transfer is so time consuming. Boo-Boo Baroo (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct that GAP's images appear to be based directly on the museum's images, and that the original images are higher quality as indicated by the higher filesize (GAP image tiles are low in quality compared to this, and also get re-encoded during the stitching process). Unfortunately I don't have time right now to automate the process of uploading LACMA's higher-quality files - for the time being I would focus on images that are in use. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for your opinion

Since I'm told that you're a copyright expert, would you please weigh in on Commons:Deletion_requests/File:ESO_Trailer_2011.ogv? Thanks, --Pine^✉ 18:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I emailed ESO. They updated the video's page to indicate that the Google Earth portion of the video is not CC and they asked us to delete the video. Would you be willing to delete or does it need to wait for a full seven days in Deletion requests? --Pine^✉ 19:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

We're not going to delete the video. We need to remove the Google Earth portion, but the rest is available under an irrevocable CC license and they can't compel us to remove it. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Sandro Botticelli - La nascita di Venere - Google Art Project - edited.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sandro Botticelli - La nascita di Venere - Google Art Project - edited.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyright Question

File:Ardabil Carpet.jpg is an image created by the museum of a huge carpet, my question is, is a carpet considered 2D? If not then wouldn't these images be copyright violations, the museum didn't release the image, it was just taken from their website. It's nominated at FPC at Wikipedia, where I initially brought my concern. Thought I'd ask you since you seem to have a good grasp on what's copyrightable when it comes to museum produced works. ;-) — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 11:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

A rectangular textile like this without tassels or other 3D features I usually classify as being eligible for PD-Art. No PD-Art work is truly 2D - paint has texture and so on. It's matter of whether the object is 1. static in appearance, and 2. the depth of the relief is small enough. If both of these apply, then the photographer's contribution is necessarily minimal. I think both of those apply to a carpet like this. Note that I am extrapolating from deletion precedent and reasoning; there is little case law to draw on in this area. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, just wanted to make sure it was all above-board. As far as I know it fits those features. It is a UK museum, so they probably see it differently. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Almost no PD-Art works on Commons are definitely PD under UK law (see Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs#United_Kingdom_.2F_UK) but that doesn't matter, we only have to satisfy US law to host it. Commons usually requires works to also be PD in the source country, but PD-Art is an explicit exception. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Vincenzo Laviosa (Italian - Franklin D. Roosevelt - Google Art Project.jpg

File:Vincenzo Laviosa (Italian - Franklin D. Roosevelt - Google Art Project.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Dcoetzee (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons fair use upload bot

Hi, how can I help you to localise this bot for the Slovene (sl) Wikipedia? --Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The main things I need are:

• A template on sl Wikipedia similar to en:Template:Fair use candidate from Commons notice.

See sl:Predloga:Obvestilo o predlogu iz Zbirke za pošteno uporabo. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Translations of these edit summaries: "Bot notice: Fair use candidate from Commons: (filename)". "Bot creating image redirect to local re-upload of image being deleted at Commons". "Reverting incorrect removal by CommonsDelinker (file still exists on local wiki)".

[Obvestilo o botu: kandidat za pošteno uporabo iz Zbirke: (Slika:filename.jpg)], [Preusmerjanje z datoteke v Zbirki na lokalno naloženo datoteko.], [Razveljavljam neustrezno odstranitev bota CommonsDelinker (datoteka na lokalnem wikiju še vedno obstaja).] --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Translations of these messages: "Wikimedia Commons file description page history". "Wikimedia Commons upload log".

[Zgodovina opisne strani datoteke v Wikimedijini Zbirki], [Zapisi o nalaganju v Wikimedijino Zbirko] --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• If there's any bot approval process on sl Wikipedia, I may need a local user to apply on my behalf, unless this bot is exempt.

I suggest that you apply as described at sl:Wikipedija:Boti. The application should be posted here. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Any tags that should be automatically applied to the image, or categories it should be placed in, to help ensure it is processed promptly and deleted if it does not comply with your exemption doctrine.

The bot should copy all the information about the author and license, add the template sl:Template:Poštena uporaba and add the tracking category, sl:Kategorija:Slike pod pošteno uporabo, prenesene iz Zbirke. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyright consultation

Hi Derrick. I'd like to consult about an image copyright question. I was looking for an image to illustrate Carlotta Monti, a minor early actress. I found http://www.toutlecine.com/images/star/0009/00091823-carlotta-monti.html which is a shot from the 1933 film/serial Tarzan the Fearless (1933). The Internet Archive thinks Tarzan the Fearless is public domain - it doesn't explain why, but we have a whole category dedicated to a similar film with the "published without a copyright" tag: Category:Tarzan the Tiger.

Unfortunately, I don't think that particular image from toutlecine is from the Internet Archive movie reel. I suspect it's a cropped version of http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/american-actor-buster-crabbe-as-tarzan-dressed-in-a-loin-news-photo/52762759 from Getty Images. The problem is that Tarzan the Fearless was released partly as a serial, several episodes of which were lost. I couldn't find that particular scene on the Internet Archive movie, and suspect it's from one of the lost episodes. It's clearly from the movie, among other things both Getty and toutlecine say it is.

So, in sum, can we consider the toutlecine/Getty shot to be public domain? If not, how about a different still from the Archive movie? There are some images of Carlotta Monti in the movie, but none as good as that shot. --GRuban (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Post-1923 US copyright questions are very difficult. For a 1933 work to be in copyright today, it must not have been published without a copyright notice, and moreover, copyright must have been registered and renewed (see {{PD-US-not renewed}}). More than 90% of works were not renewed, and you can search renewal records online (see [9]). I know very little about more complex issues like whether an image like this would be considered a work for hire, whether images like this are conventionally registered for copyright in this industry, and so on. For more info on that stuff you could consult with Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons_fair_use_upload_bot

Continuing the talk here (User_talk:Dcoetzee/Archive_2012-07-27#Commons_fair_use_upload_bot) and here (User_talk:Dcoetzee#Commons_fair_use_upload_bot), can you please add support to ml.wikipedia for this bot? --Sreejith K (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Raphaël - La Madone de Lorette - Google Art Project (677537).jpg

File:Raphaël - La Madone de Lorette - Google Art Project (677537).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Michelet-密是力 (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete File:Everything, Ian Davenport, lower right.jpg ?

Thanks for deleting the too extensive quote from the artwork description card on that page - you are right that it was a copyright issue. As the uploader, I'm probably going to ask for the whole image to be deleted, as I am no longer convinced that it is a "works of artistic craftsmanship" (OK under UK-FoP) as opposed to a "graphic work", but wondered if you had a view on this decision. I initially concluded it wasn't a "graphic work" because a) it wasn't hand painted but poured, and the paint puddles at the bottom in particular were essentially random rather than the product of skill; b) it is not a "painting" in the sense that a painting includes the surface it is upon [Merchandising v. Harpbond [1983] FSR 32], which in this case is the building, so this is not a "painting" (maybe "decoration"); c) it has an element of 3D at the bottom. However my argument looks a bit weak when murals and computer graphics are considered, and I think this question is far more debateable than I thought when I uploaded. Also now that the US-FOP/DMCI issue has come to the forefront, I don't think it is worth keeping this photo as there are too many difficult questions. Would you agree deletion would be wise. Thanks in advance. Rwendland (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is not clearly a work of artistic craftsmanship based on descriptions of such that I've seen, but due to the unique nature of the work it's very hard to predict whether it is or not. I would probably vote delete in a discussion. If you think there are too many issues to retain it, I suggest nominating for deletion so others can also voice their opinions. If you have other photos of the same work please list them in the same request. Let me know if you need help with this. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Google Art categories

Every now and again I notice duplicate categories for your Google Art uploads.

Is it OK if in such cases I move all the images to one category and make all the rest mere redirects?

Seems a reasonable thing to do, but I thought I'd run it by you first.

P.S. Thanks for your work! It's very very appreciated.

Primaler (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Please do! I've already done that for several such categories. And thank you. :-) Thank Google as well, they did the hard work! Dcoetzee (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Tate Images

Hi Derrick. There looks to be a Tate Images rep changing the licensing info on related images. See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Tateimages. INeverCry 18:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

removal of pd-art by Tate, etc

I noticed (as you may have, if watchlisted) that a user has been removing the license template from Tate's Google Art images, e.g. [10]. As there is already a declamation of Tate's position in another template on those pages, it seems pointy. I understand their position, but clearly this particular approach is not the right one--leaving the page without a "license". Boo-Boo Baroo (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Derrick - I've reverted all their edits. I'm not quite sure how to word a warning, so I'll wait for you to take a look at this. INeverCry 18:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't have straight reverted them - some of the info, including the source link to the Tate site and the accession number, are quite useful, although they should not replace the Google data entirely since that is the immediate source. The credit line field on the other hand is much murkier - they can't claim copyright in the US where these works are in the public domain, and in places where the images are not in the public domain, people should not be using them at all without a licensing arrangement, as the templates already explain. So I would probably omit these bits. I think the first step is to merge their useful contributions appropriately, then to let them know why we did it that way. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I've re-added the source link to the Tate site and the accession number to some of these. I noticed a few other editors doing this as well. I'm very busy, as always, with CSD and DR, so I don't know if I'll be able to get to all the rest myself. I hope this person doesn't start back up with the same changes tomorrow, as he's done these over the last few days. Can you talk to him Derrick? Maybe he can be convinced to tag these the right way. INeverCry 02:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been working through them too, but it's taking a while. I'm almost halfway - filenames starting with G, H and J are now done. (BTW, many of the measurements were out by a factor of 10, and I've been fixing that along the way. They were wrong on Google's site too, when I've checked.) I suspect the Tate person will be back soon, since they were working their way through alphabetically and only got as far as J. --Avenue (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping Avenue. I've warned the user on their talk, and directed them here. They made more changes today, which I've fixed. Several of these changes were simply to remove licenses without adding any info. I've told the user that if they continue with the same line of edits they may be blocked. INeverCry 17:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI - This IP has done some of the same editing and has posted on the Tate images talk page. I fixed one of their edits as well. INeverCry 17:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

All done now, I think, including the IP edits. I'm not sure if I noticed all the errors in the measurements, but that's probably a wider problem anyway. --Avenue (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It is - Google Art Project metadata is rife with errors in every single field. The off-by-10 usually results from the use of mm in a field intended for cm. There's no simple way to fix them en masse, but we can automate fixing them for particular museums by comparison with museum websites. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I see Tateimages (talk · contribs) has since made another edit to one of these photos, adding "Tate Photography" to the credit line.[11] Assuming they took the photo, I think it's reasonable for them to be credited for that, although perhaps Google Art also deserves credit for making it publicly available. Derrick, was your earlier objection to their credit line mainly because it included a copyright symbol "(C)"? --Avenue (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The copyright symbol is indeed the problem. These images are not copyrighted or copyrightable in the United States or several other nations, so this is misleading. The existing tags explain the situation in detail. Merely attributing the photographer would of course be fine, but I have no idea which of these works were actually photographed in-house by staff and which had rights (presuming they exist) transferred to them contractually from third parties. Thanks to everyone for helping clean up. I also left a message at User talk:Tateimages. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Help: no-FoP Italy

Hi. When you have a moment, could you do me a favor. I decided to occupy my time to list the no-FoP files in Italy. It has been a long and difficult work that needs to be reviewed by administrators. Please, could you check if everything is correct on User:Raoli/Deletion requests/FoP Italy? Thanks! Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I briefly reviewed your work - in cases where there is clear evidence that the architect died after 1942, and the building is not de minimis in the photo, deletion is usually a clear conclusion, but there is also the issue of threshold of originality. Many buildings are simply not copyrightable because their form is too simple. One example of a file that looks like not a deletion candidate to me is File:Genova akwarium neon.jpg, which does not show any portion of the structure other than a neon (text only) sign, a large flat wall, some concrete pillars, and an ordinary staircase. These are akin to the structures found in a warehouse or parking structure and are almost certainly not copyrightable. More careful review may be needed to identify cases that don't meet the threshold of originality - however, such images are in any case usually of low utility. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok You're a good administrator. ;) I will provide as soon as possible to delete files do not exceed this threshold. Thank you very much for the much-helpful advice. I think I've finally realized what I need to know about the Freedom of Panorama. The issue of the threshold of originality, however, IMO is not highlighted in the FOP page. Do you think we could improve it? Raoli ✉ (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning, although it is something of a separate issue, and a much more difficult one. I'm pretty confident that boring rectangular structures don't meet it, but I'm deeply uncertain over whether a photo of (say) an ordinary house in France would be allowed. There are very few deletion discussions to provide guidance here, much less case law. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

For this reason I uploaded this file - I'm sorry, but it is only in Italian for now - which lists the cases law and rules affecting the Italian copyright. I also start a deep discussion on it.wikipedia concerning this issue. Raoli ✉ (talk)

Thank you for your diligence! I'm afraid I know nothing at all about threshold of originality in Italy, but if you can shed any light on this please update COM:TOO. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll do it. Cheers! Raoli ✉ (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I have contacted my lawyer to better understand the problems related to the issue of Italy no-fop and it results no one has never been convicted for it. Raoli ✉ (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately a complete absence of case law makes it very hard to predict how boundary cases would turn out. :-( Dcoetzee (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

In Italy the term "freedom of panorama" does not exist and few people know the meaning. This thing aggravates the already dramatic Italian situation. So far, the Italian administrators of Commons turned a blind eye on the images related to the no-fop. Italy For this reason, the list is very long. The vagueness of the Italian copyright make precipitate the situation and my morale. Not is sufficient to know the Italian right because in Italy the rules are not fixed, but interpretable. This means that a judge can condemn myself for uploading a copyrighted picture and in another process another judge can absolve another person for the same offense. Bye :) Raoli ✉ (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Google_Art_Project_works_by_Oscar_Gustave_Rejlander_(British,_born_Sweden

Category:Google_Art_Project_works_by_Oscar_Gustave_Rejlander_(British,_born_Sweden has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Retired electrician (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Redundant categories

Hi, could you have a look at Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2012/12/Category:Google_Art_Project_works_by_Oscar_Gustave_Rejlander_(British,_born_Sweden. Thank you. --Foroa (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

There are loads of categories for the same artist with slightly different names, a result I assume of the way Google Art Project lays out its metadata and a bot processing it. There's no use posting about them one at a time on Dcoetzee's page and individual deletion requests. If Dcoetzee doesn't feel there is a need for these hidden categories to be kept for tracking purposes, then lots of merging/redirecting/deleting could be done. I'd do it myself if I knew there was consensus--and the deletion bit would help, if anyone wants to add that for me. ;) Boo-Boo Baroo (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Decoetzee would prefer if we move the files into the most sensible category and redirect the other categories to it, please see User talk:Dcoetzee#Category:Google Art Project works by James Abbott McNeil Whistler. --Mirokado (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I took care of that case, thanks for letting me know. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Redundant categories

Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/12/Category:Google Art Project works by Giovanni Bellini and Titian There is only one painting concerned File:Giovanni Bellini and Titian - The Feast of the Gods - Google Art Project.jpg which i took in both cats: Category:Google Art Project works by Giovanni Bellini; Category:Google Art Project works by Titian. File is also in Category:The Feast of the Gods (Giovanni Bellini and Tiziano Vecelli) Category:Google Art Project works by Giovanni Bellini and Titian should be deleted--Oursana (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC). Thanks a lot--Oursana (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC) --Oursana (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Deleted now. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Good job on PNG resizing

If you're the one who's responsible for the current PNG thumbnailing algorithm, then congratulations for the results achieved with the 595-pixel-wide version of File:Shield of Trinity Aveling 1891.png -- in the bad old days, I really would not have uploaded that file in PNG format at all... AnonMoos (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK pngscale hasn't been deployed on WMF servers and they're using the same PNG resizer as before (see bug 9497). However max image area was raised to 25 megapixels, see bug 41125. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

They're definitely not still using the somewhat obnoxious classic dumb PNG rescaler of at least the years 2006-2010. because that would have resulted in a 32-bit RGBA format image (in fact, you could have considered yourself lucky if it didn't generate a 64-bit RGBA format thumbnail with 16 bits per channel, as seemed to happen from time to time). AnonMoos (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a change in the rescaler, but they might have done one. Ask a dev. Seems nice anyway. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not actually that interested in tracking down all the exact details; just was impressed by the difference between what happened to File:Shield of Trinity Aveling 1891.png (especially since the unrescaled source image is not in explicit grayscale format) vs. what would have been done to it in past years, and thought I should give you credit if credit was due to you... -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A doubt

Dcoetzee, I got the permission through e-mail from a federal institution here in Brazil to use one of their photos on Wikipedia. What should I do to upload that photo? --Lecen (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lecen. Follow the instructions at COM:OTRS (you'll need to forward the e-mail to our OTRS permissions queue). Let me know if anything is unclear. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank You for the Wikipedia Picture

Hello, My name is Duane Hurst and I recently made a free (non-commercial) English web site to share information with people. I added links to your Wikipedia/Wikimedia freeware picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Central_Perth_from_KingsPark.jpg). I also gave credit to you on my web pages for your work. Thank you for sharing with the public. My website is:

http://www.freeenglishsite.com/

I add pictures such as yours to one of the following major sections of my site: 1. World section - contains information and over 10,000 images of every world country and territory. Link at: http://www.freeenglishsite.com/world/index.htm

2. USA section - contains information and images of every USA state and territory. Link at: http://www.freeenglishsite.com/world/usa/index.htm

3. English section - "Mel and Wes" lessons in conversation format. Stories are located in various USA states and world countries such as China, England, Germany, Japan, Mexico and Thailand. Each lesson has many slang terms and idioms, which I link to my Slang Dictionary. This eventually will have over 5,000 terms. Currently, it has about 3,000 slang and idioms. I regularly add new lessons and slang terms. Link at: http://www.freeenglishsite.com/english/lessons/index.htm Slang Dictionary link at: http://www.freeenglishsite.com/english/slang/Eslang_a.htm

Prior to retirement, I taught English at several private and public universities in the United States.

Please share this free site with your friends. I hope all will enjoy the pictures and find the English information useful. Sincerely, Duane Hurst in Utah, USA

Email address: [removed for spam protection] --65.130.202.239 01:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad the image was useful! Dcoetzee (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Gigapixel images from the Google Art Project

Hi Dcoetzee,

Thank you very much for uploading those Gigapixel images from the Google Art Project. Many people really appreciate this. I'm sure those high-resolution images will be of great use in the future.

However, I noticed several inconsistencies:

• All files are located on Commons [12], with one exception, which is on the English Wikipedia [13].
• In general, most files are named "{Artist}_-_{Artwork}_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg", with one exception: [File:In_the_Conservatory.jpg]
• If the artist is unknown, then the first part ("{Artist}_-_") is omitted, but again there's one exception: [File:Unknown,_Iran,_17th_Century_-_Silk_Velvet_Textile_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg]
• In most cases, both the first and the last name of the artist are included, like [File:Van_Gogh_-_Starry_Night_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg], but not always [File:Vincent_van_Gogh_-_De_slaapkamer_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg]
• The name of the same artist is not always the same: [File:Hans_Holbein_the_Younger_-_The_Ambassadors_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg], but:[File:Hans_Holbein_der_Jüngere_-_Der_Kaufmann_Georg_Gisze_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg]
• The name of the artwork is sometimes in English [File:Pierre-Denis_Martin_-_View_of_the_Château_de_Fontainebleau_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg], sometimes in another language [File:Sandro_Botticelli_-_La_nascita_di_Venere_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg], sometimes in both [File:Almeida_Júnior_-_Saudade_(Longing)_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg]
• One Russian painting has a filename in Cyrillic script [File:Александр_Андреевич_Иванов_-_Явление_Христа_народу_(Явление_Мессии)_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg], but another Russian painting hasn't [File:Karl_Brullov_-_The_Last_Day_of_Pompeii_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg]

I think it's more convenient if all files are named consistently. I hope you've got time to think about this.

Michael! (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. The work on English Wikipedia is not permitted here, because it is still in copyright in its source country. The inconsistencies in naming are due to inconsistencies in Google Art Project metadata, and due to changes between how the first Google Art Project batch and the second were processed. It would be very taxing to make the names consistent at this point, because they are widely used, for little to no benefit. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. In my opinion, it's better to change the names as soon as possible, because they will be even more widely used soon. However, there's not much benefit, you're right about that.

Speaking about copyright, isn't there copyright on the photographs themselves, since all of those images are created only recently? Michael! (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Michael! -- see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Also see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, which is prominently linked on the image description page of all these files. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Cawthra 1

Please explain why this image has been put forward for deletion. Thanks Weglinde (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I expanded the explanation at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cawthra 1.jpg. Please comment there. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary templating

Hi - are edits like this really necessary? The sculture (which isn't the main subject of the photo) is in the UK, so is valid on Commons (see {{FoP-UK}}). At a quick count, there are about 70 or so different FOP templates for different countries; adding each of them to an image to declare whether or not it's legal in that country would be ridiculous. I suggest just adding a disclaimer to the UK FOP template to say that it may not be free in all countries would be sufficient.  An optimist on the run! 13:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The addition of this template was one of the primary outcomes of this RfC, and there was consensus for adding them in this recent Village pump thread. The US is a special case because the WMF is located in the US, and these images may have to be deleted in the future on that basis, so it's necessary to keep track of their US status as well as the source country - status in other nations is relatively unimportant. This is fallout from the DMCA takedowns of European sculptures in public places conducted by the WMF recently, see Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2012/11#DMCA_Take-Down. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Freedom of panorama#United Kingdom makes it quite clear that images like these are valid (otherwise I wouldn't have uploaded them), so there's no need to threaten them with deletion. As I understand it, where the images are hosted is irrelevant - it's how the end user uses them that's important.  An optimist on the run! 15:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Where the images is hosted is not irrelevant - it is illegal (and against Foundation policy) for us to host any work that is not PD or freely licensed in the US (this is why this is required at Commons:Licensing). Please read the above links for more details on the FOP situation - there is a lot of discussion there and it would be redundant to repeat it here. The UK copyright status is not in question, but the US status is uncertain. COM:FOP has not yet been updated because this problem only became a matter of discussion at the time of the recent DMCA takedown. In any case nobody is nominating the images for deletion right now, this is solely for the benefit of content reusers and to help us track the scope of the problem. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I have a similar question regarding this edit by DcoetzeeBot. The UK article about the artwork makes clear that the graffiti isn't illegal, because it was arranged in conjunction with Bristol City Council. I've reverted the bot and added {{De minimis}} and {{Not-free-US-FOP}} to the file page. What do you think? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I assumed it was graffiti based on the description (which incorrectly calls it "graffiti" - which implies illegal graffiti). In any case, if it is a mural it must be deleted. FoP-UK does not extend to 2D works. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. The term "graffiti" is used because it's billed as a graffiti event and is produced by graffiti artists. I'll take the COM:DM thing to the deletion discussion. -- Trevj (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I've spotted another couple of my uploads (not photos I took) with related issues (Secret Wars 2007-01-27 Inkie.jpg, Banksy's Bristol event maybe Inkie.jpg). In these cases, I've cropped them and also believe they're COM:DM. Would you recommend that I nominate them for deletion too, in order to see what the community thinks? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

...and, regarding those two, the main subject of the photos is the artist himself - not that they actually include any identifying features such as his face. -- Trevj (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Those ones really are COM:DM, in my opinion. They are obviously pictures of the guy, and even if the artwork were removed they would still serve that purpose quite well. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

{{Not-free-US-FOP}} on sculpture in the USA

The bot recently added {{Not-free-US-FOP}} to File:Princeton University blob.jpg, which is a Henry Moore sculpture at Princeton University. It is a mistake to add this template to works that are located in the USA. Since there is no FOP available for works other than architecture, either the image is free for other reasons, or it should be deleted. The template cannot apply to a work that is in the USA. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I incorrectly assumed all of Moore's works were located in England. I didn't see the other categories on this work (or the PD-US-no notice tag, oops). I'll have to review the Moore taggings. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I found two other Moore works mistagged (File:Daviesstatue1.jpg and File:Henry Moore, Three Piece Reclining Figure Draped (1976), MIT Campus - detail.JPG). I've now reverted all taggings of works located in the US and modified the tool to automatically skip PD-US tagged works in the future. Thank you for letting me know! Dcoetzee (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know how thorough you intend to be -- there must be thousands of images that could use the tag -- but another that comes immediately to mind is Alexander Calder -- American sculptor, so his works were made in America, then shipped abroad. I think that his estate would be a whole lot more likely to prevail in a US court, arguing that US lack of FOP applied to images of his work than Moore, who was English and worked in an FOP country. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Commons Archive problems

Lovely idea, but I can't use it.

1) your cat-matching algorithm has problems. Every second time I try it (no matter how carefully), it tells me to redo it. And every other time it works.

2) I discovered this because your open proxy algorithm is greedy. Every access point I have access to - my home internet provider, my cellular provider, my university provider - was on the list.

--SJ+ 02:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It looks like the Asirra extension is broken and I'll have to fall back on something else. I'm not sure which of my IP blacklists are being so overzealous - it would help a lot if you can mail me your IP addresses so I just remove the one that is blocking legit IPs. If I had your e-mail address I could also create you an account manually. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Question for my favorite photo expert

I'm trying to help out at Deletion requests. I see Commons:Deletion_requests/2012/12/15#File:H.C3.A9l.C3.A8ne_LeBlanc.JPG. The image looks obviously like a crop of the photo in the paper, yet the image has exif data. How is this possible?--Sphilbrick (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The image is much higher res than the news website photo. It seems clear that it was cropped from the original photo (which preserves EXIF metadata with most apps). I'm not sure how the uploader obtained the original photo - they might actually be the photographer, or they might have found it on the web somewhere. I can't find it on the web myself though. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)